I read most of them but maybe it will save some folks who are late to the party from reading them all.
Didn't I read somewhere the reading of all 122 pages is a prerequisite for arbitration filing?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Didn't I read somewhere the reading of all 122 pages is a prerequisite for arbitration filing?
Hey, stop using my words against me!
Actually, I'm one rev earlier than you (1014114-00-E vs 1014114-00-F).
Not really a good analogy. Porsche didn't push down a ECU update that added rev ranges, or changed the RPM limits after the fact (spoken as a 986/996 owner with the Durametric tools).
Tesla's response to owners on issues is like a fart nobody wants to be around when they come out.
So much so that they released an app for it.
DJRas
Member
Even from the above link Jason wrote "100% displayed charge the rated miles (not ideal) * the static rated miles value for the vehicle type/config matches the BMS's reported total usable capacity to within about +/- 1 kWh" thus excluding the 4 kWh buffer.
further he wrote "Extrapolating from SoC under 100% results in numbers that are very close, but tend to be off due to other factors.".
this was written in Jan 2017.
My new "magic number" 276 (for 85kWh packs) works for all SOC from 5 % to 100% today.
I believe the Jan 2018 had a different number but the 276 is valid for data from Feb 2019.
I would like to review data from between Jan 2018 and Feb 2019 to pinpoint the exact date (software rev). where this change to 276 occurred.
The further implication is that the crowd-sourced degradation table is totally bogus because of this manipulated number.
This data: Tesla Battery Survey
Is based on users entering their "Rated Range" information.
MY data point on that chart on May 13, 2019 fit right at the nominal degradation curve at 247 miles at 135,000 miles
However, Tesla reported to ME on reviewing MY battery test they performed that the Fleet-wide average at that at 135,000 miles was 231 miles.
Amazingly enough... 231 miles at 295 Wh/mile = 68.1 kWh usable capacity and 247 miles at 276 Wh/ mile ALSO is 68.1 kWh usable capacity. Since the crowd sourced data matches my data using the manipulated number and Tesla says their 231 miles was using 295 Wh/mile...
I believe we have all be duped by this chart that our batteries have not been degrading as much as they ACTUALLY have.
No, but people forget that they tried that one app to connect with their car and then deleted it, but maybe the service is still polling the car.who knows. Just to be safe and remove possiblity of some other source polling the car.
Shrug. All analogies have some distinctions. Same basic thing: the performance of your car changed after you bought it caused by a software design (to address a hardware issue). Whether the software was there out the factory, or they flashed the ECU, or did an OTA doesn't much matter.
Anyway, wait till Porsche and others figure out OTA updates (and get around the ind dealer rules prohibiting it) so they can implement what they forgot to implement right out of the factory.
Last edited:
@sorka I doubt it, that just deletes user settings not the entire OS - depending on how they go about it that might even (yikes!) install the staged update (but I doubt it). There are tips around the forum to unplug your seat and try to install an update so the seat error makes it fail, and if you have enough failures it gives up and stops staging update. but I'm not brave enough to risk letting tesla take more of my car from me so I can't confirm this works.
My seat connector is already unplugged on the off chance it works but only one member claimed this and it wasn't based on casual proof but rather correlation which has no value with a sample of one. I'm hoping that starting the install and then pulling the power and then repeating until it gives up will do it but I don't want to try that until I'm back home which is not for another week.
Thanks. I've never used the password with any other app since I do not even try them temporarily for security reasons. I also change my password couple of times a year. But your advice is a great one to practice. Thanks again
From the manual:
"FACTORY RESET: Erase all personal data (saved addresses, music favorites, imported contacts, etc.) and restore all customized settings to their factory defaults"
So based on that the staged update should stay in place.
On Edit: I see @Chaserr has already answered it.
lightningltd
Member
Not likely. I searched out there and found only ONE random person that stated that if you set the update to start in 5 minutes and instead drive the car before it starts, it fails and has to re-download.
I would take that with a grain of salt with only 1 report.
Good luck, bud.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I would say it’s heavy rather than excessive. Before the download, I would lose between 0.5% to 1% per night. It was because I was regularly losing 2% per night that drew my attention to the battery issue. The Vampire loss has increased, slowly, over time. It now seems to be steady at 4% per night (4% on 3 of the last 4 nights). But I have lost 14% over 4 nights, and 8% over 2 nights when I haven’t even driven the car!
Of course as my battery is now 15% smaller, the overnight loss, as a % figure, is likely to be greater (1% of 70kWh is less than 1% of 58kWhs) But I do think something new is going on that is consuming power. It is more noticeable as the car is not normally plugged in overnight.
Ferrycraigs
Member
I find it interesting that Tesla claim the restriction on my battery is because they want to improve longevity and the health of my battery. Really? So they have reduced the capacity of my battery from 70kWh to 58 kWh. This means:
1. I have to charge more frequently. Each journey takes 50% more energy than before. (Bad for the battery.)
2. I have to charge to a higher SoC (90%+) to regain some of the lost distance. (Bad)
3. Once charged the battery is likely to remain at a higher SoC for longer periods. (Bad)
4. There is a ratio between the charging power and the battery capacity. Called C Rate. Li Ion batteries can survive without damage up to a C Rate of 2
Charging a 70kWh battery on 120 kW Supercharger equals C Rate of 1.7 (Good)
Charging a 58kWh battery on 120 kW Supercharger equals C Rate of 2.08 (Bad)
So it seems that Teslas interference with my battery, to make it healthier and live longer, seems to have now put it in a regime that is worse for its health and longevity in the four main areas.
DJRas
Member
Well... you still have a 70 kWh battery. It is just only charging to 83% of capacity (Good).
I agree with everything else you said though!
Similar threads
